From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The Scriptorium is Wikisource's community discussion page. Feel free to ask questions or leave comments. You may join any current discussion or start a new one; please see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help. Project members can often be found in the #wikisource IRC channel webclient. For discussion related to the entire project (not just the English chapter), please discuss at the multilingual Wikisource. There are currently 326 active users here.



Remove DISAMBIG tag from Versions and Translations header templates[edit]

User:ValterVB has informed me that the DISAMBIG tag magic word causes problems on Wikidata if the linked item is not an instance of "Wikimedia disambiguation page". Is it possible for us to remove this tag without causing further issues? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

What would we replace it with? Versions pages and Translations pages function like disambiguation pages.
Wikidata has done very little to accommodate the structure and linking of the Wikisource projects. It sounds like something that they should be addressing, not us. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree. However, I don't trust Wikidata to address this, given their track record. Furthermore, these pages function like disambiguation pages on a conceptual level, but I do not see a need to have them tagged as such in the system, especially if it causes compatibility issues with sister sites. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
But Wikidata isn't a "sister site". Wikidata was proposed as a coordinated central location to support the Wikimedia sites. If they can't fulfill their function, it's not our problem.
Yes, I know what they're like. A misguided bot operator recently began adding Wikisource translations from multiple Wikisources to the same data item based on the interwiki links, because he didn't have the slightest idea that this was incompatible with both the Wikisource structure and the Wikidata data model for works. He didn't bother to do any research before turning the bot loose.
The only reasonable recourse I can see would be adopting the "Work:" namespace, just as the Italian Wikisource has done ("Opera:" in Italian). They have a separate namespace for listing editions or translations so that there isn't a need for tagging them as disambiguation. However, this would be a lot of work for us. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree with EncycloPetey on this one, in that it's something that WikiData should be fixing. Those are disambiguation pages, albeit a different kind of disambiguation. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Is this about mainspace pages that disambiguate between different works of the same name? Or is it about mainspace pages that link to multiple editions of the work. The former are disambiguation pages and (I think?) can be instances of disambiguation page; the latter are works and are instances of creative work (or a subclass). But there is a great deal of misunderstanding around Wikisource on Wikidata, so let's not make concessions to fitting our structures to the wrong way over there! :-) Sam Wilson 05:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
This is about mainspace pages that link to multiple editions of the work, i.e. Versions pages. Versions pages, like disambiguation pages, contain the magic word __DISAMBIG__ in the {{versions}} template. This apparently causes problems on Wikidata, and given what we know of Wikidata they will almost certainly refuse to fix any such problems. Because of this, and because I know of no benefit that this magic word provides, I am therefore proposing to remove this magic word from the {{versions}} (and {{translations}}) headers. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
It seems everything causes problems on Wikidata, and nothing is ever fixed. If we concede to make changes to fit them, we will be doing so over and over. Then Wikidata will change their model and we'll have to do it over again. They've been doing just that with regard to data items for biological taxa for years, having the same argument over and over. I say we worry about what works for us, and if Wikidata can't cope, then oh well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey! Dont talk about wiki- … oh, them, yeah! Wikidata is rubbish! CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Remove it … again? I thought we weren't supposed to mention it? I might have done once, think I got away with that [faints] CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Bot approval requests[edit]

Repairs (and moves)[edit]

Designated for requests related to the repair of works (and scans of works) presented on Wikisource

Help to regain my sanity[edit]

I hereby offer anything within my means, to the successful elimination of the additional empty line created by each click of the [Show preview] button. You may not realize, but each click of this button adds an empty line to the end of the "textarea" text and this drives me "crazy!!!". Five clicks of the [Show preview] button adds five empty lines at the bottom of the text edit area. This problem exists in all Wikisources which use the Proofread module. and I tested this (as a renegade of sorts), at the French Wikisource. So, I know that this issue is not exclusive to English Wikisource, but originates in the Main Proofread module of Wikimedia. Volunteer programmers there overlook this problem as not being important, and simply refuse to correct it because they are programmers and not proofreaders.

So, Please support this request to help me proofread and avoid mental health issues. . . . Thanks for your support. — Ineuw talk 05:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Open ticket 188844 (created by Ineuw) presumably refers? 05:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Other discussions[edit]

Adapting Template:pd/1996 or a new template[edit]

As per previous conversation started by Prosfilaes, from next year US-published works published in 1923 will be out of copyright, and progressively year by year others will follow. We need to start working on whether we will adapt Template:pd/1996 to have wording that says that the work is out of copyright, and reconfigure that template to set triggers. Or whether we are going to implement a new template for post 1922 works. (Full coverage at copyright tags.) — billinghurst sDrewth 09:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't the 1996-series of template primarily apply to works published outside the US? For works inside the US, we've been using the 1923-series of templates, and I would assume that it's the 1923-series that would need to be adapted to accommodate US-published works from 1923. It would be odd to have "published before 1923" to be a reason a work is in PD, if works published before 1924 is the actual set of works in PD. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You are correct that the pd/1996 has been non-US first publications to this point, and there would be complications in updating the template. Template:pd/1923 is set, and incrementing Template:PD/19xx is possible, though becomes a lot of templates. It is why I brought up the issue as we have to get the wording right, and look to the easiest means to progress through the years. As 1977 is the next US copyright milestone, maybe it is something like pd/1978 with both a year of birth AND year of publishing as parameters, where year of publishing flicks between copyright and not copyright.

billinghurst sDrewth 22:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Let us keep watching for the rest of 2018 to be sure that the US copyright term is not extended. Then I may want to introduce "PD-pub-95" to mean "public domain for being published more than 95 years ago. Renaming Pd/1923 will probably be too disruptive, so making a new template may be better.--Jusjih (talk) 04:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
It's not going to happen, and part of the reason it's not going to happen is because we are going to rip the hell out of Congress if they try. Being able to say that are already preparing for this change will only help our case. And when the ball drops in New York, I will be uploading 1923 works, and will need an appropriate tag.
I'd like a single PD tag that takes publication year and author death year (if known), and it shouldn't mention in the name the exact rules, just applying all the rules that can be deduced clearly from publication year and author death year. Maybe just naming it PD-old would be too much?--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I support the single-PD template idea. While it would be rather an in-depth template, I don't think it would be particularly difficult to implement (just a series of if-elsif-else conditions). Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The US Copyright Office already considered the copyright terms too long. Mid-term election will be soon. Template:Pd/1923 is heavily used, so renaming will be harder than adding new template like "PD-pub-95". I will wait for the ball to drop in Times Square.--Jusjih (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looking back at this and thinking again, I think that we should be building a template based on 1978 cutoff, aligning with 1923 and 1996 cutoff usage. We already have our subset of use templates (<1923; 1923<1996) that have a series of #if statements (well #ifexpr) that get implemented. At this stage we need to have some output templates that work in main ns that cover 1923 to 1977 at least
  • published in US between 1923-1963 with notice and renewal
  • published in US between 1964-1977 with notice
  • published outside of US between 1923-1977 (two scenarios)

where we will be incrementing per year. So we just use a #if expression for currentyear - 95 > publicationyear where it shows the PD template when true, and copyright violation when it fails. It is a few years until we need to worry about PD-old for post 1923, so we can work that bit out later. If someone uses this new license for a pre-1923 work, we can simply apply the {{pd/1923}} logic.

We still need a licence to display and the wording to use for US users, bottom half replicates pd/1996.billinghurst sDrewth 10:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Big untranscluded works[edit]

I am just looking at some of the untranscluded works that we have, and these are some of the biggies that need addressing

Top 5
Migration from text only to image-based

Probably a couple of thousand pages here. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The US Statues are a nightmare because of the weird templates and they use in mainspace. Is there a list of untranscluded works somewhere? I've never found one. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, I'll take a stab at A General History... so we don't all go stepping on each other. :) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
We have category:Transclusion check required which is proofread works with something needing to be done. There is also the active list generated at toollabs:phetools, though that a listing of untranscluded pages, irrespective of the status of the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
i see Confederate Military History is missing 2 volumes, and needs some index love for others. i could scan those volumes at LOC, if there is milhist interest. Slowking4SvG's revenge 03:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
the 2 missing volumes are at hathi;view=1up;seq=1 ;;view=1up;seq=5 if someone from a US institution could upload to internet archive. Slowking4SvG's revenge 15:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I'll take care of the A Child's History as well since A General History is completed. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
That one's done too. I transcluded it separately from the existing works since the text was actually different, so they weren't from the same edition. Not only that, but the work was actually two volumes, only one of which was The Child's History of England. Either way, it's been transcluded and cleaned up some. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Support ends for the 2006 wikitext editor[edit]

This toolbar is being removed from MediaWiki.

The 2006 wikitext editor will be officially removed next week, on the normal deployment train (i.e., Wednesday, 24 October 2018 for the Wikisources). This has been discussed since at least 2011, was planned for three different dates in 2017, and is finally happening.

If you are using this toolbar (and most of you aren't), then you will be given no toolbar at all (the 2003 wikitext editor). This default was chosen so that your editing windows will open even faster, and to avoid cluttering the window with the larger toolbars (a particularly important consideration for Wikisource's PagePreviews). Of course, if you decide that you would prefer the 2010 or 2017 wikitext editors (or a gadget like WikEd), then you are free to change your preferences at any time.

Although it is not a very popular script overall, I know that some editors prefer this particular tool. If you are one of its fans, then you might want to know that some long-time editors are talking about re-implementing its best features as a volunteer-supported user script. I believe that any announcements about that project will be made at mw:Contributors/Projects/Removal of the 2006 wikitext editor. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Please see mw:Contributors/Projects/Removal of the 2006 wikitext editor#Alternatives (and perhaps w:fr:Discussion utilisateur:Arkanosis#Page, where he talks about changes that you might need to make to some older scripts). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
see also m:Wikimedia_Forum#mw.toolbar_back_or_global_gadget_as_a_replacement apparently, this toolbar change is contentious. Slowking4SvG's revenge 05:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Bilingual book[edit]

One of the books I am considering to upload and proofread is Modern Czech Poetry, ed. Paul Selver, 1920. The book contains a collection of poems of Czech writers in original Czech language on one page and the English translation of the opposite page, see . The editor probably wanted to present readers both versions and so it seems to me that we should also present here the English translation together with the original poem. What do you think, is it a good idea or should only the English translation be added to the English Wikisource, as original Czech version belongs to the Czech Wikisource?

If both versions could be added, what would be the best way of their transclusion to the main space, so that they stayed next to each other? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

--Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: Multilingual works belong at mul:. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. I have looked at it and it seems to be a strange site to me. The main page is just a disambiguation page referring to various language wikisources including and many others. After a long time I found a list of languages included at mul and it seems it is intended for some minor languages, but not for English or Czech. I am trying to browse the site but I am completely lost there, unable to find any local rules or whatever. If the work really belongs there, I am afraid it would be completely lost there with a minimal chance to be found by readers (as the main page sends readers somewhere else) and so it seems a loss of time adding it there. So if the Czech text should not be here at, I will add just the English versions of poems. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: OldWikisource (the multilingual Wikisource) serves several purposes: one is to be the landing page for Wikisource in general, just like how introduces Wikibooks and does for Wikivoyage. Another is to hold material for languages with very small literature corpuses (e.g. some dead languages or Papamiento which is generally only spoken and not written). A third is to act like incubator: where a language subdomain can "graduate" to its own site. Finally, it hosts multilingual works, such as s:mul:Index:Festival Romanistica.pdf or s:mul:Hail Mary or s:mul:Index:Boletín RAE VI (1919).djvu or s:mul:Bukvar staroslovenskoga jezika glagolskimi pismeni za čitanje crkvenih knjig. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@Koavf: I see, thanks for the explanation very much, now I understand it better. The biggest problem I see with this site is that it was necessary to explain it at all, as the reader does not get this information on the main page and in fact I did not find it even after quite a long time of searching. I was not able to find any page explaining the system of the site, its rules, anything. As a reader I am directed to various single-language sites and do not get the information that multi-lingual works can be found there and how/where I can find them. So I got the impression that adding there some work is like throwing it into a black hole :-( --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Putting this work at the Multilingual Wikisource would mean that users looking for Czech poetry in English on the English Wikisource would not find it. We need to store works in English on this Wikisource so people looking for works in English can find them. We could have a link from the relevant author pages here to the Multilingual Wikisource, but I don't see what that gains us.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: If the work is a collection of single-language works, rather than a single multi-language work, this is frequently handled by splitting the content between enWS and the relevant language WS. For examples, have a look at my laWS user page. — If the text is completely parallel, it may also be acceptable to only transcribe the English content and leave the rest to other editors; see Index:Aida Libretto English.djvu and Index:National anthem act Canada.pdf. — You may also find the templates documented at Template:Iwpage/doc useful. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: I see, thanks. I just thought that as the editor of the book wanted to present the English readers the English translation of the poems along with the original text, we could keep the original text too. But if you feel it is better to add only the English text as in your examples, it is fine to me as well. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: I think it is (always) better to have both the English text (on enWS) and the Czech text (on czWS). You will see that the examples I gave on my laWS user page (especially The seven great hymns of the mediaeval church where the original and translation are presented in parralel) are like this: the English and Latin texts are both present and accounted for. The last two examples were provided because you said "I will add just the English versions of poems". If you are not comfortable working in multiple wikisources, it is completely acceptable for you to only do the English parts and to leave the Czech part for someone else at a future time. For example, I did this with Aida, because I don't speak Italian and was not comfortable trying to work on itWS. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: You can have a look at this work. Hrishikes (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: I don't know if this is the best method for this particular collection. I thought we generally discouraged formatting these works in parallel like this, except where it is clearly inappropriate to separate the original from the translation. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: As for cs.wikisource: the poems are much older than this bilingual publication, so it would be much better to add them to from the original Czech sources (in fact some of them are already there). Besides that, there is no clear consensus on as for using proofreading extension and the index and page namespaces. Inf fact conservative local admins oppose it very much and discourage contributors from using it, and I gave up fighting with them. Another problem is technical: cs wikisource uses a lot of templates which are not compatible with en.wikisource environment. Once I tried to transclude something from there to and failed for this reason.
So I personally do like the solution suggested by @Hrishikes:. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I see no reason to exclude part of the work, and would think that can be duplicated at the Czech wiki source. The attempts to avoid this situation just begets problems, and putting it where it won't be seen is unhelpful. Notwithstanding some questionable interpretation of a rule inferred from the historical split of the wikisource library, the complete text can be welcomed at this site; here is a featured text Le Corbeau that displays both languages (having just restored that version from "experiments" and an undiscussed revert). It is preferable that users concern themselves with solutions to matters that have defined and undesirable consequences, Yet again I ask, what are those consequences in this situation? — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 08:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, on other Wikisources (at least the French, the Latin, the Breton and the Multilingual - that I know of), we put each parts of a multilingual book in the corresponding Wikisource (with all the templates and tools to make it easy and smooth). Is it not the rules also on the English Wikisource? (if not, it will create problem for bilingual books containing English, like on Le Corbeau where I thought I was applying the usual formatting to only discover afterwards that I was not by Cygnis insignis). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

A Hundred and Seventy Chinese Poems[edit]

This work has already been fully transcribed years ago, but there are still many pages that need to be created for individual poems (see red links in the contents). Isn't there an automated way to do this? Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The automated way to do it is transclude the entire work to that page. The ToC can then link to the page further down, which is easily done by wrapping the page numbers with the wikicode #170|. If someone then wants to make 170 redirects or versions, that full transclusion need not wait and will still return a search result. — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 08:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I have done the single-page ones. I did a few a couple of the multi-pages ones but I stopped as I was unsure how to fix <poem> across pages (you can follow my traces in Page ns to see my fix). If someone more familiar with poems could take a look, I appreciate.— Mpaa (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
BTW, djvu page 218 is unreadable. If someone finds a replacement, happy to fix it.— Mpaa (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mpaa: Sample here of how multi-page <poem> may be achieved. At a basic level the poem extension is almost incompatible with the ProofreadPage extension (the two fight over the implied </div> between the page body and page footer. Neither really wins! The compromise is to put up with the result of transclusion being effectively two <div>s nested inside a third being… sort of acceptable. 04:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
i have stopped using poem, and rather use block center, with lots of br line breaks. i find it more stable, if a little more work. Slowking4SvG's revenge 14:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mpaa: I don't know if this is deliberate, but several pages have the character "⋅" in the translator and notes fields of the page header. For a list of affected pages, see Category:Works with non-existent author pages (which flags them as Author:⋅ is not an existing page). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl:, thanks, should be fixed now.— Mpaa (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Wow. Thanks everyone, you guys are amazing! ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Rotated table overlaps text[edit]

At the bottom of Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 1.djvu/772, there appears a table whose contents have been rotated left 90 degrees relative to the text of the page. At least as it is displayed in my browser, however, the rotation has caused the table to cover up the last several lines of text in the paragraph immediately before the table. Assuming that this is not caused by some idiosyncratic behavior of the computer I am using, does anyone know how to prevent the rotated table from covering up the preceding text? Tarmstro99 20:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Rotation doesn't resize the container, so you have to add a gap above (and below) the table for the long ends to rotate into. If the container is square everything will fit nicely. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
It’s odd (to me) that the same problem does not appear at Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 1.djvu/778, which also contains a rotated table but doesn’t (in my browser, at least) appear to overlap the text above and below. Tarmstro99 15:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
That table is only different because 1) it is more square and 2) it has a gap before and after for the long sides to rotate into. If you make it less square (by removing some rows), or if you remove the paragraphs before and after that contain only a single non-breaking space, you will see that it rotates into the text above and below just like the other one. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
The observation about the second table being “more square” gave me the idea to add a width parameter to the table on Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 1.djvu/772, which seems to have done the trick (for now, at least; we’ll have to see how it looks when transcluded. :-) Tarmstro99 15:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


I would like to ask the community whether it could be acceptable in some cases to name an author page with the pseudonym of the author instead of his civil name. I believe it could be possible if the author is known almost only by the pseudonym. I have recently founded Author:Petr Bezruč, whose civil name Vladimír Vašek is practically unknown and unused both by readers and literary critics. The same case is Author:Otakar Březina (who probably changed his name because his civil surname sounds obscene to contemporary Czech readers). A short time ago this practice was still accepted by Help:Author pages, but today it was removed by Billinghurst.

In my opinion this makes the author page less comprehensible to readers, because a note about pseudonym written in much smaller font somewhere in the description or note is not the same as the name of the page. I also believe we should follow the same practice as big the libraries do: most links in the authority control call him O. Březina too (including the Library of Congress or Czech National Library ), mentioning his civil name as an alternative. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

It is acceptable to use either the civil name or the pseudonym (or the religious name or whatever) at the discretion of the page creator. There should be a redirect in place from the other names the author goes by. The notes field of the author header should also specify names the author goes by. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. For some authors, the pseudonym is the name under which the individual is indexed in VIAF, LoC, BNF, GND, etc. and for whom the civil name is almost wholly unknown. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
There are plenty of examples here, where names other than civil names are used: Author:Sri Aurobindo (civil name: Aurobindo Ghosh), Author:Ramakrishna Paramahamsa (civil name: Gadadhar Chattopadhyay), Author:Swami Vivekananda (civil name: Narendranath Dutt), Author:Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar (civil name: Ishwar Chandra Bandyopadhyay), Author:Paramahansa Yogananda (civil name: Mukundalal Ghosh). There are plenty others. This is a time-worn scheme, it is not prudent to discontinue this. We will always find cases where civil names of authors are virtually unknown, except to scholars in the field. Hrishikes (talk) 06:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-43[edit]

23:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Large-scale copying of ancient inscriptions into Wikipedia articles[edit]

There is a discussion going on regarding large-scale copying of the text of ancient inscriptions, and whether this kind of primary source copying is more appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia or Wikisource. Your feedback would be welcome at w:WT:CP#Large-scale copying of ancient inscriptions into articles. Mathglot (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

e-book reader down loads[edit]

is there interest in providing a "e-book" download option for readers? i see there was previous discussion about selling those,[1] but could we make it easier for readers to download for off line reading? Slowking4SvG's revenge 13:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

We can barely come to a consensus for how to support mobile users; I don't think we have the raw manpower/wherewithall to support a variety of additional formats. :( --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
if it is an external tool, do not need a consensus. can change interface via phrabricator. it is unclear how hard it is to build a tool. maybe a summer of code could do it. Slowking4SvG's revenge 14:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Most of our templates are not compatible, and any changes to templates would require consensus. We had similar issue with that "book download" functionality. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

A wandering student in the Far East vol.1[edit]

I have encountered an issue in the display of CHAPTER II. SHANGHAI TO ICHANG. [2]

On Page:A wandering student in the Far East vol.1 - Zetland.djvu/81 there is a Footnote containing a table which spans over onto the following page.

I am unable to make this display correctly. Would someone be able to take a look and correct my formatting error please.


Sp1nd01 (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The <ref> tag was in the header and so wasn't transcluding, should be ok now —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! it's displaying correctly now. Sp1nd01 (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Difficult to read Latin text[edit]

Can anybody read the text at the top of Page:Bohemia's claim for freedom.djvu/11, please? A better legible version is also at . It seems to me that it starts with the name of Johan Hus, but I am not able to read much more. Or should I add it there as a picture? Thanks! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I would put it as a picture, since it's only an image of a mauscript, as evidenced by the way it's cut off at the right margin. If it were transcribed it would need to preserve the abbreviations which can be difficult in Unicode. The full expanded text is "Johannes Hus Magister in Artibus Sacrae theologiae Baccalaureus [studii universitatis] Pragensis Rector et praedicator verbi Jesu Christi in capella S[anctorum]". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, you are probably right with the picture. Thanks for both the transcription and the advice. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

{{sp}} vs. {{gesperrt}}[edit]

Time for another template showdown, with two templates with only a difference of 0.05em of spacing. Special mention to {{letter-spacing}} which has no defaults but is marked as for merging with {{sp}}.


  1. {{sp}}: 8940 pages
  2. {{letter-spacing}}: 1325 pages"
  3. {{gesperrt}}: 1144 pages"

This will be a little more work than a simple redirect unless the 0.05em doesn't matter much. -Einstein95 (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we should merge the three of them into one.— Mpaa (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Removal of {{textinfo}}?[edit]

When one of the old non-scan-backed works is replaced with a transclusion, should we also be removing the old (no longer accurate) {{textinfo}} on the talk page?

For example, consider Call of the Wild (London). The talk page's text info claims that this is the text from Project Gutenberg, but it's now transcluded from a scan of the original work, so it's not relevant anymore. (And all contributing users can be found in the history anyway.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree. If the text is from an original scan, the textinfo cannot give the reader information that it was taken from somewhere else. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-44[edit]

20:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

November's PotM[edit]

Anyone interested, can you please take a look at some items parked at the PotM talk page for November 2018, as well as BWC's remarks in the Option C section for that same month? November is almost here, and it would be great to get some feedback from more people. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Decision time: We need a follow-on work for PotM. There are several options on the table. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Decided. Can someone please create a disambig page for "The War and the Future" before I forget? There are two instances here. I am signing off or I would. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

11:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Indic Wikisource Community Consultation 2018[edit]

This Wikisource Meet, described at Meta, is going to be organised in Kolkata on 24-25 Nov., 2018. One member from each Indic Wikisource has been invited. I have been invited to represent English. If the Community desires me to talk specifically about some issue at this Meet, please let me know. Best, Hrishikes (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Non apperance of CharInsert gadget...[edit]

When editing an Index page I do not see the additional toolbar generated for the CharInsert gadget. Can someone give EXACT configuration details to get it working again, thanks? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Currently under discussion at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help#Wikitext_editor. I doubt anyone has EXACT configuration details to give you. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-45[edit]

17:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Open call for Project Grants[edit]

IEG IdeaLab review.png

Greetings! The Project Grants program is accepting proposals until November 30 to fund both experimental and proven ideas such as research, offline outreach (including editathon series, workshops, etc), online organizing (including contests), or providing other support for community building for Wikimedia projects.

We offer the following resources to help you plan your project and complete a grant proposal:

Also accepting candidates to join the Project Grants Committee through November 15.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 19:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Plainlist does not indent for sub lists..[edit]

The page here has an index with 2 levels of entries Page:Mr. Punch's history of the Great War, Graves, 1919.djvu/330

I could format this using TOCstyle, but that seems like overkill, so I am using plainlist, however currently that just flattens the list down entirely, which is not the desired behaviour.

Is there someone here that can come up with a tweaked CSS class to accommodate a page like this?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Simplify. Don't use a list class at all. It's not necessary for indices. For something like this I usually use poem tags and a simple colon indent for the second level. No need to make it more complex than that. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
It's a list; it should be marked up as a list, not least to improve accessibility. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
The CSS you need is: style="list-style:none". Eg:
<ul style="list-style:none">
<li>Outer item 1</li>
<li>Outer item 2</li>
  <ul style="list-style:none">
    <li>Inner item 1</li>
    <li>Inner item 2</li>
<li>Outer item 3</li>
Which renders like:
  • Outer item 1
  • Outer item 2
    • Inner item 1
    • Inner item 2
  • Outer item 3
...Unless I misunderstood what you were looking for? --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Which is essentialy what

could be generating.. The class for plainlist needs a LI->UL->LI rule I think..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

which I don't think it currently has.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Currently using TOCstyle as I understand it. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The actual style for plainlist is
.plainlist ul{line-height:inherit;list-style:none;margin:0}
.plainlist ul li{margin-bottom:0}

which seems to mean every UL is forced to left-hand margin of the DIV, irrespective of it being a "sub" list or not.

MAybe an additional rule such as

.plainlist_i ul li ul{position:relative; list-style:none; margin:1.6em} 

could be considered, so that successive sub-lists can beindented, but I don't think it's complete solution. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Pretty sure you don't need position:relative. I'm also pretty sure you don't need anything more complicated than:
.plainlist ul{ list-style:none; padding-left:0 }
.plainlist li > ul { padding-left:1em; }
Eg. as seen here: [9] --Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Can I upload Research works done in our University here?[edit]

Can I upload research works does by me, my friends and some of my faculty here? If yes, how can I prove that they are public domain if I'm the first person place them on internet and they haven't published them yet. In this way how can they prove that they doesn't have any sort of objections? IM3847 (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

In general, Wikisource does not accept original works. See Wikisource:What Wikisource includes#Works created after 1922:. Analytical and Scientific works can be included if the work has been published following peer review, or if the author or researcher is considered notable. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
right - you could prove they are public domain by publishing in an open access journal with a CC0 license. if they are open pre-publication draft of paywall journals, you would then upload them to your website, with the CC0 license. Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Some of them are published on our college library site, now can I upload them too?
You'll have to be a bit more specific about what is proposed to be uploaded. Self-publication on a website is not sufficient in itself to merit inclusion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I've written a research paper on a few Natural disasters in India which contains a few desktop studies. This paper was published in our University Library. No can I upload it to Wikisource? If yes then how? IM3847 (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Could you provide a bibliographical citation for the publication discussed? If they are accessible online, could you provide a link to them? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
[10] This is the link of the journal published by my classmate.
I think the main problem with works published in this journal is that the journal states at the bottom of the main page that all rights are reserved. What is more, the guidelines for the submissions of papers require filling and sending Copyright form, which states that "In the case of republication of the whole, part, or parts thereof, in periodicals or reprint publications by a third party, written permission must be obtained from the Editor-in-Chief of IJRET." So you would probably need such a permission stating that the article can be released into public domain. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-46[edit]

19:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Change coming to how certain templates will appear on the mobile web[edit]

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Books in french for French Wikisource[edit]


I am contributing on french wikisource and I would like your help. I can download lots of books from Hathitrust (public domain work) but some books aren't accessible (but they are in the public domain). There are :

  • Labarre - Le chant de la paix, see HT
  • Marseille, porte du sud, see HT
  • Une officine royale de falsifications, see HT
  • Hello-Les Plateaux de la balance, Perrin, 1923, see HT
  • Œuvres complètes / Albert Londres, see HT
  • Poèmes à Lou see HT

Is someone can send me theses books by email ? Thanks ! --Shev123 (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Moved from Wikisource:Requested texts--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-47[edit]

23:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)